Re: [wg-c] Re: Importance of the Registry

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Note as a preamble that Connolly expressed support for the idea of multiple registries.
Indeed, this was expressed in a way that assumed that no one in their right mind would
support the idea of a single, global shared registry. Good. This is progress. Now, to
continue...

Kevin J. Connolly wrote:

> Okay, I concur again.  [snip]  If we've
> gotten to the point of classifying a Nominet-style registry as proprietary, then we've
> come full circle.

Let's explore this. It may hold the key to a workable resolution. It seems to me, and please
correct me if there is any error here, that Nominet has received the delegation for dot UK,
full stop. The "owners" of that delegation chose to set it up as a shared system with
ownership by registrars. It was a *choice.* They legally could have chosen, as the .TO ccTLD
did, to license it to a single commercial entity and run it as an integrated
registry/registrar. Or they could have set it up as a non-profit integrated
registry-registrar like the .NZ ccTLD.

The point is, Nominet itself decided what business model to adopt and what would be the
terms for participation in that system of shared ownership. Not all of the world's ISPs are
members of Nominet and not all are able to act as registrars within .UK, correct?

So are we assuming that whatever new gTLDs are created by ICANN must be accessible to ALL
registrars according to uniform criteria and business arrangements dictated by ICANN?

Or are we trying to create a system in which different approaches to the problem can be
tried out, and let consumers decide?

What is the difference between giving Nominet exclusive control of .UK and giving some other
entity exclusive control of .web or .whatever?

Suppose the CORE comes before ICANN and says: "we would like to run a shared registry for
the gTLDs .shop, .info, and .nom. To participate as a co-owner of these TLDs, one must pay a
fee of $x, and for each registration the registry will charge $y." CORE would in effect be
the "proprietor" of those three gTLDs, but the proposed arrangement would be a shared
registry.

Now suppose that Ambler comes along and says, "I would like to run a registry for the gTLD
.web. I will act as both registry and registrar and charge $x for each end user registration
and for registrars who interact with me through my own proprietary SRS software and deliver
more than Z registrations a month I will reduce $x by 50 percent.

My point is that if I were ICANN, I would say "yes" to both propositions, with certain basic
conditions (e.g., technical capacity, loss of delegation for criminal behavior, etc.). I
would conceive of my role as a coordinator of the root zone, and NOT as someone who dictates
what business models registries must adopt, or as someone wise and all-seeing enough to
define and implement the "one best model."

Is that such an unreasonable position?

As soon as you buy into the idea of multiple registries, then you must also concede that
there will be variation in the gTLDs that these registries run. If there is variation, then
each registry is in some sense exclusive or proprietary with respect to the others. If that
is true, then why shouldn't these alternative registries also be allowed to experiment with
different business models--especially since there will be many competitive alternatives?

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/